coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.
5.  On an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd against his former employer, the State Kirovograd Store No. 72 for military personnel (Кіровоградський воєнторг № 72) claiming salary arrears. On 11 September 1998 the court awarded the applicant 1,834.92[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).
6.  The Government submitted that on 16 October 2003 the debtor in the applicant's case had transferred the amount awarded by the judgment of 11 September 1998 to the Bailiffs Service's bank account. By letter of 30 January 2004 the applicant was requested to provide information necessary for a bank or postal transfer of this amount from the Bailiffs Service's account to the applicant. Since the applicant failed to provide such information the awarded amount remains unpaid to him.
7.  On 28 October 2001 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service claiming compensation for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 9 November 2001 the court returned the applicant's complaint on the ground that it should have been lodged under the civil procedure. On 21 December 2001 the same court returned the applicant's appeal against the decision of 9 November 2001 for non-compliance with the procedural formalities.
8.  On 31 January 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against his former employer, the Kirovograd Store No. 72 for military personnel, claiming compensation for the loss of earnings caused by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 5 September 2002 the court left the applicant's action without consideration as the parties twice failed to appear in court hearings. According to the applicant, he was informed about this decision only upon his request lodged with the court in December 2003. In February 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 September 2002. On 2 June 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 25 April 2005 the Leninskyy District Court found against the applicant. The applicant submitted that he had learned about this judgment only from the Government's observations submitted to the Court in September 2005. He did not request to renew a time-limit for lodging an appeal against it.
9.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Treasury claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 11 February 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 7 April 2004 the same court returned the applicant's appeal as he had failed to pay the court fee. On 8 July 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 April 2004. The applicant appealed against these decisions in cassation and proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Budapest, was registered in 1991.
5.  On 21 September 1995 the Hungarian Red Cross brought an action in damages against the applicant.
6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 18 November 1999 the Budapest Regional Court delivered an interlocutory judgment (közbenső ítélet), finding that the applicant was liable for the damages sought.
7.  On 15 February 2001 and 30 April 2003 respectively, the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court and as a review instance, upheld the interlocutory judgment.
8.  The first-instance proceedings were resumed on 19 November 2003. After several hearings, on 9 June 2004 the Regional Court established the amount of the damages payable. On 15 September 2004 it rectified that decision.
9.  On 8 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal, in a final judgment, increased the amount to be paid by the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  On 18 July 1992 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the İstanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
6.  On 3 August 1992 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court. On the same day, he was also brought before a judge at the İstanbul State Security Court who ordered his remand in custody.
7.  On 30 September 1992 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and sixteen other co-accused and requested the applicant's conviction under Article 125 of the Criminal Code for his activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control.
8.  The first hearing, held before the İstanbul State Security Court on 23 October 1992, in the applicant's absence, was taken up with procedural matters, such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.
9.  Between 23 October 1992 and 11 April 2003, the İstanbul State Security Court held hearings at regular intervals. On 26 November 1992 the first-instance court decided to join another case against the applicant to the proceedings. It further decided to join to the proceedings against the applicant several other cases brought against other persons who were also accused of membership of the same organisation. At the end of each hearing, the İstanbul State Security Court considered releasing the applicant pending trial both ex officio as well as upon his requests. At each hearing, the court, taking into account the content of the case file and the state of the evidence, decided to prolong the applicant's remand in custody.
10.  On 11 April 2003 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
11.  On 7 June 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court.
12.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 5190 on 16 June 2004, which abolished the State Security Courts, the İstanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.
13.  On 30 December 2004 the İstanbul Assize Court released the applicant pending trial.
14.  According to the information available in the file, the case is apparently still pending on the date on which the present judgment was adopted.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Velika Gorica.
5.  On 8 March 1991, while driving in a car as a passenger, the applicant was shot and injured by unknown perpetrator.
6.  On 24 March 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for the sustained injuries. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 18 October 1994 the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part. The respondent appealed.
8.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
9.  On 18 June 1996 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 18 September 1997 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
11.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
12.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. It held hearings on 20 June 2004 and 20 January 2005.
13.  On 3 February 2005 the court pronounced its judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part. Both parties appealed.
14.  On 6 December 2005 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment.
15.  Meanwhile, on 23 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 28 June 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded her 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 20 July 2004.
4.  The applicants were born in 1984, 1970, 1964, 1958, 1962 and 1961 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.
5.  The applicants were active members of HADEP[1] in Diyarbakır at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.
6.  In 2001, on various dates, the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
7.  The periods spent by the applicants in police custody are as follows:
 
Name
Date(s) of arrest
Date(s) of release
Abdulkadir Baz
12 August 2001
21 August 2001
Sedrettin Dinar
12 August 2001
21 August 2001
Mahrem Bulut
4 May 2001
12 August 2001
7 May 2001
21 August 2001 
Mehmet Akbalık
14 June 2001
12 August 2001
15 June 2001
21 August 2001
Tahsin Aktaş
12 August 2001
21 August 2001
Yusuf Sebuk
19 August 2001
21 August 2001
8.  According to official documents, Mahrem Bulut and Mehmet Akbalık were arrested for the first time on the basis of statements of Mr S.D., Mr M.A., Mr B.E., Mr H.I. and Mr T.G., who alleged that the applicants were involved in PKK-related activities. As to the applicants' arrest in August 2001, the case file reveals that the police had been informed that there would be illegal violent acts and demonstrations to celebrate the anniversary of the beginning of the armed struggle of the PKK and that the names of the applicants came up as possible organisers.
9.  Subsequent to these events, criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicants for membership of the PKK by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, with the exception of Sedrettin Dinar and Tahsin Aktaş.
10.  On 11 June 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted Abdulkadir Baz and Yusuf Sebuk of the charges against them. The criminal proceedings against Mahrem Bulut and Mehmet Akbalık were pending at the time of their application to the Court.
4.  The applicants were born in 1927, 1947, 1952, 1965 and 1950 respectively and live in Kocaeli and Istanbul.
5.  In 1996 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel Idare Müdürlüğü) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants.
6.  Following the applicants' request for increased compensation, on 9 October and 16 October 1998 the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision in respect of each of the applicants.
7.  On 3 May, 21 June, 22 June, and 25 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance's judgments in respect of Aziz Yıldırım, Aykut Kocaman, Kamil Dağlı and Ahmet Güzel, Bedaettin Bahattin Gülşen[2], Hüsnü Aksoy and Sinan Erbil, respectively.
8.  By decisions of 30 June 1999, 1 July 1999, 10 September 1999, 25 October 1999 and 26 October 1999, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants' requests for the rectification of its decisions.
9.  On 23 March 2000, 22 January and 24 January 2001 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration paid the amounts due to Kamil Dağlı and Ahmet Güzel, Bedaettin Bahattin Gülşen1, Sinan Erbil, Hüsnü Aksoy, Aykut Kocaman and Aziz Yıldırım respectively. Details are indicated in the table below:
 
NAMES
OF THE
APPLICANTS
 
AMOUNT OF INITIAL COMPENSATION PAID TO THE APPLICANT
(In Turkish liras
DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANTS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED)
(Turkish liras)
DATE AND
AMOUNTS OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % ,50 % & 6 0 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS)
(Turkish liras)
Bedaettin Bahattin Gülşen1
(plot no. 21/550)
959,167,500 22.01.2001
40,918,610,700
 &
26,499,453,300
Aykut Kocaman
(plot nos. 13/429 & 13/482)
 
3,110,000,000
 &
 3,425,000,000
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Szeged.
5.  In September 1997 the applicant was dismissed from work. On 12 November 1997 he challenged the employer's decision in court.
6.  After a hearing on 30 April 1998 before the Budapest Labour Court, on 4 June 1998 the case was transferred to the Pest Central District Court. This court discontinued the proceedings on 21 October 1999, because the applicant, although properly summoned, failed to appear. At his request, the case was continued on 22 February 2000 but was immediately stayed, again at his request. He demanded the continuation of the proceedings on 4 August 2000.
7.  After a hearing on 26 April 2001, on 2 May 2002 the District Court found that it had no jurisdiction in the case and requested the appropriate designation by the Supreme Court. On 22 May 2002 the Budapest Labour Court was appointed to hear the case.
8.  After a hearing on 21 January 2003, on 6 May 2003 the Budapest Labour Court found for the applicant, established that his dismissal had been unlawful and awarded him compensation.
9.  On appeal, on 28 November 2003 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the first instance decision, increased the award, but dismissed the remainder of the applicant's compensation claims.
10.  On 23 March 2004 the applicant filed a petition for review. On 26 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 March 2005.
5.  Mrs Olga Mykolayivna Koval (the first applicant) was born in 1964. Mrs Alla Oleksandrivna Patsyora (the second applicant) was born in 1952. Both applicants are former teachers at a local school and live in the town of Rozdilna, the Odessa Region.
6.  On 7 October 1999 the Rozdilna Court (Роздільнянський районний суд Одеської області) awarded the first and the second applicants, respectively, UAH 1,248[1] and UAH 2,485.28[2] against the Department for Education of the Rozdilna Municipal Council (hereafter “the Department”) for arrears in some payments additional to their salaries (see, in this respect, Kechko v. Ukraine, no. 63134/00, §§ 9-11, 8 November 2005).
7.  On 18 October 1999 the court issued writs of execution, which were submitted to the Rozdilna District Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”).
8.  In letters of 22 February 2001, the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour had not been executed because the 1999 State Budget did not preview the expenditure for teachers' social benefits. In the 2000 State Budget teaching programmes were funded only 2.8% of actual needs. The 2001 State Budget likewise did not provide funds for this purpose. The State Administration further stated that such payments could only be made after the adoption of relevant legislation by Parliament.
9.  On 2 April 2001 the Odessa Regional Department of Justice notified the first applicant that the judgment of 7 October 1999 could not be immediately enforced due to the Department's lack of property that could be attached.
10.  On 30 July 2001 the Velykomykhaylivsky Court rejected the applicants' complaints against the alleged Bailiffs' inactivity.
11.  On 14 May 2002 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, following the second applicant's appeal, upheld this decision. The applicant was present at this hearing. She did not appeal in cassation.
12.  On 24 May 2002 the Velykomykhaylivsky Court left without consideration the first applicant's appeal against the decision of 30 July 2001 for failure to comply with the formalities as to its content and to pay the court fee and allowed her time until 26 June 2002 to rectify the mistakes. On 3 July 2002 the court returned the appeal without consideration for failure to rectify it.
13.  On 29 December 2001 the first applicant was paid UAH 160.
14.  On 14 August 2003 the Bailiffs returned the execution writs of 18 October 1999 to the applicants, stating that the judgments could not be enforced as the State Budget provided no funds for such payments.
15.  The judgments of 7 October 1999 remain unenforced until present.
4.  The applicants are all Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır.
5.  In May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur municipality, with which they had been employed.
6.  Each of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pays and other pecuniary rights.
7.  On 11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the municipality to pay the following amounts in Turkish lira (TRL), including costs, together with interest running from June 1999:
8.  In the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 19 November 1999.
9.  Within the following months, the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings in order to receive the due amounts. As their efforts proved fruitless, they requested the Diyarbakır Governorship to intervene to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments. The Governor's Office informed the applicants that they had requested the municipality to redress their grievances. However, the municipality did not make any payment since it was underfunded.
10.  At the date of introduction of the current applications, the relevant judgment debts were still outstanding. However, in the meantime, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:
11.  No settlement was reached with the other applicants. However, the municipality deposited certain partial amounts in the relevant account at the local enforcement office, which amounts were made available to some applicants and later paid.
12.  On 9 November 2004 a settlement agreement was reached by the applicants' representative, Mr Sedat Çınar, and the authorities. The agreement concerned the outstanding legal fees stemming from the labour courts' judgments. Mr Çınar waived all of his rights and claims in connection with his representation of the applicants in the labour cases.
13.  On 28 March 2005 Mehmet Salih Kömekçi[5], Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu and M. Cihat Aydın initiated fresh claims against the municipality to recover their severance pay.
4.  The applicants were born in 1981, 1983 and 1981 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa.
5.  The applicants were arrested and taken into custody on 19 and 20 February 1999 respectively on suspicion of their involvement in the throwing of Molotov cocktails at various public buildings. On 23 February 1999 the Suruç Magistrates' Court ordered their remand in custody. The applicants were aged sixteen (Mehmet Koşti) and eighteen (the other applicants) at the time of the events.
6.  On 23 March 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and four other persons, accusing them of throwing Molotov cocktails at the Suruç primary school and the Suruç public garage on 18 February 1999 and of attempting to throw Molotov cocktail at the Suruç Atatürk primary school with a view to supporting the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). The charges were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
7.  On 7 April 1999 the criminal proceedings against the applicants and four other accused commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
8.  On 12 May 1999 the court heard the applicants who refuted the allegations against them and their earlier submissions given before the police, public prosecutor and the Magistrates' Court. They also challenged the accuracy of the arrest protocol and the report on the reconstruction of the events. The court decided to secure the testimony of those who had attended the arrest and the reconstruction of events and the submissions of the accused who were not detained. It further ordered that the birth date of Hışman Öngör and another accused be determined since they had claimed that they were actually born in 1986.
9.  Between 12 May 1999 and 22 December 2000, the Diyarbakır Security Court held fifteen hearings where it took various procedural decisions and postponed the trial as the procedure concerning the determination of the age of two accused had not been completed.
10.  At the hearings held on 22 December 2000 and 20 February 2001 respectively, the court requested the prosecution and the defendants to submit their observations on the merits of the case. On 10 April 2001 the applicants' lawyer requested an extension for the submission of the applicants' observations. This request was accepted by the court.
11.  Throughout the proceedings the applicants' lawyer repeatedly requested that the applicants be released pending trial. He maintained, inter alia, that they were juveniles and that their acts could not be considered to constitute an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Court. The first instance court dismissed the applicants' requests until 29 May 2001, having regard to the nature of the offence with which they were charged and the state of the evidence.
12.  On 29 May 2001 the court decided to defer sentencing the applicants and their co-accused, pursuant to Law no. 4616. It therefore ordered the release of the applicants from detention.
13.  The public prosecutor appealed.
14.  On 20 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court.
4.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1962 respectively and live in İzmir.
5.  In the course of criminal proceedings against them, the applicants were remanded in custody between 7 March 2000 and 30 March 2000.
6.  Following their acquittal, the applicants applied to the Bergama Assize Court on 13 July 2000 and sought compensation for both non‑pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.
7.  On 12 February 2001 the İzmir Assize Court, relying on the experts' report, awarded each applicant 86,801,820 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately EUR 51) for pecuniary and TRL 500,000,000 (approximately EUR 300) for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded the applicants a certain amount for costs and expenses incurred before the criminal court. The court, however, did not rule on the applicants' request for interest running from the date of their action.
8.  On 30 November 2001 the Court of Cassation rectified a calculation mistake and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was not served on the applicants but was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 16 January 2002. The applicants failed to provide the date on which they learned of this judgment.
9.  On 8 May 2002 the applicants applied to the İzmir Provincial Finance Directorate requesting payment of their compensation. The authorities paid the amount due on 11 December 2002.